Count these guys in as a big "Si Senor" to that commie Hoyer and Nosensenbrenners latest tomfoolery.
Just what we need, a mechanism to continually reelect socialists that rob from the rich and give to the useless in exchange for votes.
Posted on 10/08/2006 11:22:08 AM PDT by janetgreen
Bills introduced in Congress to repeal 8-year restriction of 22nd Amendment
WASHINGTON – One thing is certain about the 2008 presidential election campaign that begins in one year: It won't involve George W. Bush as a candidate.
But bipartisan legislation to repeal the 22nd Amendment restriction of two terms for U.S. presidents could change that certainty for future presidents.
Two of the most passionate congressional advocates of such a move – Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-MD, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI – have teamed up to sponsor a resolution that would represent the first step toward that change in the U.S. political system.
"The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics," explained Hoyer. "While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result."
Until President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term during World War II, there was no such restriction in American law. A tradition of presidents serving two terms only began with George Washington.
"We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."
Hoyer argues the 22nd Amendment "has the effect of removing the president from the accountability to political forces that come to bear during regular elections every four years."
Rep. Howard Berman, D-CA, is another advocate of the move.
"I don't like arbitrary term limits,'' he said. "I think our country was better off because Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to run for a fourth term. Imposing an arbitrary limit makes no sense.''
Should the resolution pass and be approved by the states, the repeal would not go into effect until after the Bush presidency, making him ineligible for multiple consecutive terms.
The 22nd Amendment states: "Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
"Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress."
Hoyer's bill is not the only one in the House with the same goal. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-NY, has introduced a similar resolution. Both of the Democrats have been working on repealing the 22nd Amendment since the presidency of Bill Clinton.
Former President Clinton is on record as approving of the repeal of the 22nd Amendment.
If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.
No.
One six-year term.
No re-election worries affecting the decision-making of the President, and no "perpetual campaign season."
The 17th Amendment is bad enough. To extend EXECUTIVE power like this would be like pissin on the Constitution.
Agree. They want to change the rules so Bubba can run again.
No.
I trust Harry Truman on this subject...
No. Can you imagine BJ Willie as our dear leader for life?
Why not term limit Congress Critters instead?
Good idea, and I agree. There's too much campaigning, and not enough real business getting done.
No.
No Way!
term-limit congress, and make Presidency a 6 year term like Mexico's..
Just like Mexico?
Jim Sensenbrenner should hear from us on this.
DAMM HELL NO
I agree.Two terms works for me.
Why not just have Kings (or Queens) since that is what it could amount to given the 5 second attention span of most voters.
There, fixed it.
Yes, but only if it would have applied to President Reagan or President Washington. Otherwise, no.
Yes, but only if it would have applied to President Reagan or President Washington. Otherwise, no.
----
Well put -- the rest should have been just ONE TERM. Especially Clinton...got help me forget the thought and sight of those two criminal Marxist maggots.
Dewey would have been elected if Roosevelt could have not run a 3rd and term. And yes, the a Allies would have still won WWII and the atom bomb would have been developed.
That is one of the best suggestions I've seen in a LONG time. Every year before an election, all that is done is politicking. The president could be involved with the country more and find out what really goes on instead of the insulation of partisan politics.
Hell No!!
Many in Congress on both sides of the aisle, those imbedded pains in America's hindside, need to be unceremoniously ushered out.
ABSOLUTELY NOT... The Libs must be grabbing for this one. Hillary wants to be Queen.
Over 10,000 proposals to amend the Constitution have been put in the hopper in Congress over the centuries. Only 52 have passed even one House of Congress. And only 27 have been ratified by 3/4ths of the states, as required by Article V.
In short, this article is a tempest in a tea pot.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "Sex, Politics, and Hypocrisy"
Please see my most recent statement on running for Congress, here.
Power corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
World Nut Daily must be out of NAU conspiracy stories to bring this up yet again.
What can Sensenbrenner be thinking? What is his aim in this bill? Doesn't make sense.
I say to Representative Hoyer; "This is a Republic, not a democracy!" And I note it always is the Democrats; FDR, Clinton, Hoyer, etc. who want more. Their craving for power doesn't get more obvious. When they get it, they rule the country vice run the Executive.
The 22nd Amendment is a wise restriction on budding dictators who occasionally make it to the Presidency. Repealing it would be high folly!
My question is why would Sensenbrenner propose it?
Regulatory-agency-bureaucrats are even worse than Congress. Term-limiting Congress would shift even more power over to those bureaucrats.
Maybe Sensenbrenner is thinking about some stray FBI files, or IMs...
Think about Klinton in 4 or 8 more years.
That isn't even a thought, that's a nightmare.
great idea....one six year term!!!
now...let's do something likewise for congress...especially the senate where shi-ite heads like fat ted are there for life!!!
We should do it like Rome. One, one year term.
A term limit on Congresscritters would also get us back to the concept of citizen legislators that the Founding Fathers envisioned instead of having the current crop of political whores from both parties who will say and do anything it takes to remain in Congress.
We already have too much in common with Rome, especially our Congress (Roman Senate). Maybe we should slowly back away from repeating history.
If there is a change, make it one term of six years through election by the Senate and let the States appoint their own Senators without popular election.
NO WAY!
Two terms (eight years) is enough for ANYONE.
Two was enough for George Washington.
"There should also be limits on Congress also. 4 - 2 year terms for Congressmen and 2 - 6 year terms for Senators. Far too many or these people lose their way after staying too long"
I totally agree to term limits on Congress and the Senate.
That is what is needed.
The President to a one 6 year term would be best for the country.
Count these guys in as a big "Si Senor" to that commie Hoyer and Nosensenbrenners latest tomfoolery.
Just what we need, a mechanism to continually reelect socialists that rob from the rich and give to the useless in exchange for votes.
President Washington was not term limited. He had character. When he refused to run for a third term, he indicated that he thought two terms were enough for anybody. This established a precedent, which all presidents followed until FDR.
After FDR was elected to a 4th term, and made some serious errors as he was dying, it became evident that Washington's precedent should be more strongly encouraged, thus the 22nd amendment.
"Just like Mexico?"
More like the confederacy. Didn't the confederacy want only one term for presidents, the length being six years?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.